Can you believe this nutjob?

[teufelhunden]

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/education/article/0,1299,DRMN_957_3501617,00.html

Ward Churchill says 9/11 victims were not innocent people

By John C. Ensslin, Rocky Mountain News
January 27, 2005

A University of Colorado professor has sparked controversy in New York over an essay he wrote that maintains that people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were not innocent victims.

Students and faculty members at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., have been protesting a speaking appearance on Feb. 3 by Ward L. Churchill, chairman of the CU Ethnic Studies Department.

Advertisement
Click to learn more...
They are upset over an essay Churchill wrote titled, "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens."

The essay takes its title from a remark that black activist Malcolm X made in the wake of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Malcolm X created controversy when he said Kennedy's murder was a case of "chickens coming home to roost."

Churchill's essay argues that the Sept. 11 attacks were in retaliation for the Iraqi children killed in a 1991 U.S. bombing raid and by economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations following the Persian Gulf War.

The essay contends the hijackers who crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11 were "combat teams," not terrorists.

It states: "The most that can honestly be said of those involved on Sept. 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course."

The essay maintains that the people killed inside the Pentagon were "military targets."

"As for those in the World Trade Center," the essay said, "well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break."

The essay goes on to describe the victims as "little Eichmanns," referring to Adolph Eichmann, who executed Adolph Hitler's plan to exterminate Jews during World War II.

Churchill said he was not especially surprised at the controversy at Hamilton, but he also defended the opinions contained in his essay.

"When you kill 500,000 children in order to impose your will on other countries, then you shouldn't be surprised when somebody responds in kind," Churchill said.

"If it's not comfortable, that's the point. It's not comfortable for the people on the other side, either."

The attacks on Sept. 11, he said, were "a natural and inevitable consequence of what happens as a result of business as usual in the United States. Wake up."

A longtime activist with the American Indian Movement, Churchill was one of eight defendants acquitted last week in Denver County Court on charges of disrupting Denver's Columbus Day parade.

His pending speech at Hamilton has drawn criticism from professors and students, including Matt Coppo, a sophomore whose father died in the World Trade Center attacks.

"His views are completely hurtful to the families of 3,000 people," Coppo said.

A spokesman for Hamilton College released a statement noting that Hamilton is committed to "the free exchange of ideas. We expect that many of those who strongly disagree with Mr. Churchill's comments will attend his talk and make their views known."

[Kevmaster]

i would agree (although not quite to that extent) with him when he says that:

"When you kill 500,000 children in order to impose your will on other countries, then you shouldn't be surprised when somebody responds in kind," Churchill said.

The attacks on Sept. 11, he said, were "a natural and inevitable consequence of what happens as a result of business as usual in the United States. Wake up."

that said, he's one ****ed up individual

[TheTramp]

While the Pentagon is a military target, that just means that we needed to find the people who hit it and use our military to respond. We got some of this done in Afganistan.

Of course all his arguments fall apart when he implies that the "combat teams" were involved some how with Iraq. They were part of a terorist organization that has it's own ajenda and is using Iraq as nothing more than a way to recrute more members.

[Lohman446]

While the Pentagon is a military target, that just means that we needed to find the people who hit it and use our military to respond. We got some of this done in Afganistan.

Of course all his arguments fall apart when he implies that the "combat teams" were involved some how with Iraq. They were part of a terorist organization that has it's own ajenda and is using Iraq as nothing more than a way to recrute more members.

Umm... in regards to this - weren't most of the terrorists involved in September 11 NOT from Iraq? Doesn't this make the argument at its base a lot harder to make.

[teufelhunden]

I believe zero were Iraqi, actually. 15/19 were Saudi, IIRC.

[Lohman446]

Then the base argument that these were people directly suffering from the actions against Iraq and thus were justified in there actions... is umm

[teufelhunden]

Then the base argument that these were people directly suffering from the actions against Iraq and thus were justified in there actions... is umm

Nobody is saying he's right or even logical

[PBX Ronin 23]

Freedom of Speech.....he's afforded that right.

But he certainly deserves a good whoopin' for his insensitive remarks. I personally wouldn't mind administering it myself.

[TheTramp]

Umm... in regards to this - weren't most of the terrorists involved in September 11 NOT from Iraq? Doesn't this make the argument at its base a lot harder to make.

Yes, and in fact it's exactly my point. Not only were "most" not from Iraq as you say but in fact none of them were from Iraq. They were using the first gulf war and it's aftermath for their own goals.

It would be like Balkins war starting up again because the christians there saying they are taking revenge on the muslums there because of 9/11. (not a perfect analogy I know)

[teufelhunden]

Freedom of Speech.....he's afforded that right.

But he certainly deserves a good whoopin' for his insensitive remarks. I personally wouldn't mind administering it myself.

Nobody is saying he shouldn't have the right to say what he wants to say. However, with every right comes responsibilities and reprocussions of exercising said right.

We should put together a "combat team" and go knock on his door..



Mel, I know you're Jersey-ite.. did you know anybody who was killed/lost a relative? Up here I personally know a few in town and know of a few more. Best friend's dad works in that area and another friend's dad made it out.. others weren't so lucky though :-/

[PyRo]

His argument is already so full of holes it cannot be shot down.

[drg]

Make sure you visit THESE nutjobs too with your combat team:

The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this. And I know I'll hear from them for this, but throwing God...successfully with the help of the federal court system...throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad...I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen.

- Jerry Falwell, 9-13-01

I totally concur ...

- Pat Robertson, 9-13-01

[Hasty8]

So the destruction of the World Trade Towers were a result of economic sanctions visited upon Iraq.

Does that mean then that Iraq was involved with September 11th?

Typical liberal-socialist nonsense. They want it both ways.

First they say that Iraq was not in anyway involved with the September 11th attackes then they say the attacks were retaliation against "injustices" against Iraq.

What a joke.

I love all these "limosine liberals". They are so willing to condemn America yet I very highly doubt this fool sent a single penny to help eleviate the suffering.

[drg]

So the destruction of the World Trade Towers were a result of economic sanctions visited upon Iraq.

Does that mean then that Iraq was involved with September 11th?

Typical liberal-socialist nonsense. They want it both ways.

First they say that Iraq was not in anyway involved with the September 11th attackes then they say the attacks were retaliation against "injustices" against Iraq.

Typical narrow-minded conservative viewpoint. Incapable of even simple logical analyses if they go against their beliefs. But in reality, it's not too far-fetched that a third party witnessing perceived injustice can seek to get involved. In fact it's fairly common with politically motivated violence.

Funny that the distinction between the "regime" and "people" of Iraq that the right labors so hard to preserve is so quickly muddied when it is convenient for an argument.

What a joke.

I love all these "limosine liberals". They are so willing to condemn America yet I very highly doubt this fool sent a single penny to help eleviate the suffering.

How telling that you consider the only measure of "help" to be money. A typical example of corrupt right-wing values. Instead, Churchill devotes his LIFE to fighting injustice and the suffering it causes. Giving of yourself and your time is priceless.

[matt-o]

hes right to some extent though, the way we act with outher countries it was kinda inevitable, and the pentagon was a mlitary target. the fighting units statement is kinda half right, they werent soldiers, but they were trying to fight a war without an army and that was what they could do since they cant just shoot off cruise missiless like us. also keep in mind we carpet bombed enemy cities in world war two. and WE were first to do that, not the nazis. its all a matter of ways and means. we interfered in the middle east before they interfered in america, and im sure many more innocent people have died over there than over here